REVIEW: Gyllenhaal, Prince of Persia Delivers Throwback Movie Thrills
Part of what makes Prince of Persia fun, and even sometimes affecting, is that the actors deliver even the hokiest lines here as if they were Shakespeare. "This is a matter for the gods, not man!" Tamina declares at a crucial moment and boy, you'd better believe it. The movie's plot (the script is by Boaz Yakin, Doug Miro and Carlo Bernard, from a story by Jordan Mechner) becomes a little muddy in the second half; it's as if the writers came up with some really cool doo-dads at the beginning -- among them a mystical dagger with a jeweled button on the hilt, its powers so complicated it ought to come with a user's manual -- and then weren't quite sure what to do with them. Much of what happens is either explained or foreshadowed by dialogue; the movie could use less telling and more showing.
But Newell, with the help of cinematographer John Seale (The English Patient) and production designer Wolf Kroeger, certainly gives us plenty to look at. The movie opens with an old-timey map, rendered in a faded orangey tones, just so we'll have absolutely no doubts about where this ancient Persia place was actually located. Too many filmmakers, striving for so-called historical accuracy, go for the mud-brown look. (Nothing says historical accuracy like mud.) Seale's version of historical accuracy is, thank God, the fairy-tale kind. Everything in Prince of Persia looks luxe and burnished. A set of special wooden doors are so intricately carved they resemble metal filigree. Even simple clay houses are bathed in a golden glow. Seale scatters similar fairy-dust light around the actors: When Tamina and Dastan first lay eyes on each other, the molecules of air between them seem to shimmer and melt away before our very eyes.
Then there are the obvious physical charms of the actors. Arterton isn't just a blandly pretty face. There's something bold and sensuous about her, particularly in these costumes (designed by Penny Rose). In fact this, and not Sex and the City 2, is the movie for clothes lovers this weekend. Arterton's Tamina is decked out in silky harem pants, jeweled headdresses and mini brocade vests that highlight her decolicious decolletage, outfits that are completely appropriate for the woman, the climate and the fantasy-historic setting, as opposed to just being a fashionista mish-mash. Even the horses here are decorated, sporting some excellent golden nosepieces.
Prince of Persia may not be perfect, but this is at least filmmaking with a sense of grandeur. In a moviegoing climate where so many people -- out of necessity or preference -- end up watching movies at home on DVD, Prince of Persia begs for special consideration. It deserves to be seen on a hot Saturday afternoon in a theater (preferably an air-conditioned one) peopled with other people, the way many of us used to see movies as kids. After all, Gyllenhaal's ancient prince has traveled thousands of years to come to a theater near you. The least you can do is meet him halfway.
Pages: 1 2
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
You sound like you work for Disney by practically begging people to see this movie. Other reviews I have read have not been good. One reviewer even stated that gyllenhaal's abs look computer generated. Ouch.
See Prince of Persia: Sands of Time! It makes The Mummy Returns look like The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor!
Wow, Sandy, so Stephanie needs to stick strictly with the critical consensus?
Will check POP in the theatre now(was humming and hawing about seeing it). If nothing else, I can always just spend the time drooling over Jakey-poo's body. Yowza.
I love this kind of swashbuckling thing, if the tone is right. I'm in.
Oh, Jake is toned all right.
Thank you, Stephanie. Thanks to your review being much the highest scorer on Metacritic, I now know to avoid this movie like the plague. According to most of the other reviews, the movie is forgettably formulaic, and given your lousy track record, I have no reason to doubt the consensus this time around.
Why is it you feel the need to constantly adulate performers merely for looking pretty and being innocuously charming (while simultaneously denouncing acting that aims for something more than that)? Is this all we expect of stars now? Could you be any more predictable in your praise? The moment I saw you'd given this movie a rave review, I knew exactly what sort of plaudits you'd sprinkle over hotties Jake and Gemma - almost word-for-word what you say about EVERY young performer you approve of. Even the specifics of your praise always break down the same way along gender lines: young or youngish guys always get a thumbs-up for being dashing and looking like they're having fun or "having a blast," girls always get the thumbs-up for their bone structure: you always talk about some (usually imaginary) striking idiosyncrasy in their pulchritude: "Arterton isn’t just a blandly pretty face. There’s something bold and sensuous about her...." You could insert the name of any actress here who's ever gotten the Zacharek Seal of Approval, from Debra Winger or Michelle Pfeiffer in their youth, to Gwyneth Paltrow or Natalie Portman or Charlotte Gainsbourg today... the praise is always some variation of the above sentiment about Arterton.
I notice this movie was directed by Mike Newell. Well, I guess Newell, like anyone else, needs box office hits, and all the money and opportunities that come with them. In the 80s, Newell directed a movie called THE GOOD FATHER, quite a good film which received deservedly good reviews from most critics, but a vicious pan from Pauline Kael, who also trashed in laughably unconvincing terms the brilliant lead performance by Anthony Hopkins (including deriding all the reviewers who claimed, correctly, that he was superb).
Here's a challenge for Stephanie. I dare you to rent that DVD and review it and not simply repeat the empty complaints of Pauline Kael.
If PRINCE OF PERSIA (directed by Mike Newell) is so wonderful, do you think THE GOOD FATHER is also a good movie? If so why, and if not why not? Do you think Anthony Hopkins gave a greater, more praiseworthy performance than Jake Gyllenhaal or Gemma Arterton? If Gyllenhaal gets such high marks from you under Newell's direction, will Hopkins as well? (In particular, I want to know your opinion of Hopkins' handling of his breakdown scene opposite Joanne Whalley, where he tearfully confesses his feelings about his young son....) Or maybe you can't bring yourself to admit that Kael was wrong about something, and that her assessment of Hopkins' acting was embarrassingly wide of the mark.
I had no intention of seeing this movie, but given this review, I'll have to give it a try. As for Stephanie Zacharek always reviewing movies based on looks, I'm wondering if the person who said this has ever read her reviews, which are the most thoughtful and original I've ever read. I love the notion too that disagreeing with the general consensus is evidence of her lack of taste. Might it be the courage of her convictions perhaps? Just a thought.
"As for Stephanie Zacharek always reviewing movies based on looks, I'm wondering if the person who said this has ever read her reviews, which are the most thoughtful and original I've ever read."
Then you obviously haven't read much of anything of importance in your life, and need to start broadening your limited horizons. "Original" is demonstrably the last thing Zacharek's reviews are, since a good 90 percent (at least) of her output is an uninspired copy of Pauline Kael's criticism. It is an undeniable fact that Zacharek's tastes and opinions are deeply derivative of Kael's. If you're not aware of that fact, that doesn't make it any less of a fact.
Zacharek's lame-ass defenders need to start cutting the crap. Reality check for you all: just because Zacharek departs from the Gospel According to Entertainment Tonight, doesn't mean she has "the courage of her convictions." She HAS no convictions of her own: she only has Pauline Kael's convictions. I've come to see that most of the people who follow her and admire have no real knowledge of film criticism in general, and probably have never read more than a smattering of Kael. If you'd actually worked your way through Kael's oeuvre, you wouldn't still be impressed with Zacharek, since Zacharek is like an obedient lapdog who repeats, repeats, repeats, without considering whether Kael was correct or not, whatever Kael thought about anything at all to do with film. Don't try to refute me till you've actually familiarized yourself with the facts concerning Zacharek's track record as a critic.
(I will say Zacharek is slightly better than her husband, Charles Taylor, who is an even more fanatically Kael-Bot - the equivalent for movie reviewers of Ayn Rand's brainwashed Randroids).
"It is an undeniable fact that Zacharek's tastes and opinions are deeply derivative of Kael's. If you're not aware of that fact, that doesn't make it any less of a fact."
This is funny, You need to check some high school textbook about the difference between fact and opinion.
You might want to look up "demonstrably" too while you are at it.
The only "funny" thing about it is your inability to rebut my criticisms with anything other than ostrich-like denial. Unless you've read both Kael and Zacharek carefully and extensively, not cursorily, you simply don't know what you're talking about when you praise her as a great writer. What you believe to be "her" skills as a writer is nothing but a retread of Kael, who did it better. Zacharek's development as a writer has been hampered by her overreliance on Kael - and it's time someone pointed this out. Enough with the endless fawning (by ignorant readers) over an unoriginal and imperceptive reviewer. A certain level of open-mindedness is a pre-condition for good criticism - and Zacharek simply isn't open-minded enough, because she takes everything Kael ever said as gospel.
But yours, and the other lame defenses of Zacharek, certainly reveal what sort of mindset Zacharek attracts.
I personally thought this film was very good, Its easy to presume these kinds of films will be garbage as other game to film ideas have been disasters. I gave this a try mainly because of Ben Kingsley. I'm glad I did. The dialogue is fairly flat but the characters are superb the acting is pretty good Ben is fantastic as per usual. And persia and its surroundings look amazing. It also comes with a good plot! Well worth a watch! 7/10
I'm pretty much on the same page as you, Roosevelt. I was hesitant, but decided to give it a try, and I was pleasantly surprised. Like you said, the dialogue could have used a bit more work, but all in all, not a bad film. I'd give it a 7 as well.
Jim
Okey finally got this sucker under my belt. It has been on the to see list forever, and its exactly what I expected from a movie based on a video game.
They usually have to make up so much story that it usually end up with a half descent fail..
And so as well in this case.
J
I can't believe you actually liked this movie! The only one I enjoyed was Transformers, the rest, in my opinion, including all three Spidermans, was weak and plain boring...
This movie clearly aims at kids, and teens. It also caters to hard-core video gamers who love Prince of Persia game franchise. There are a lot of jumping just like in the games.
There are many fighting scenes. They look okay. The scenes are colorful and beautiful. The special effects look riveting. For example, the snake scene looks very real.
Jake Gyllenhaal's acting is fun and engaging. Gemma Arterton's acting is stiff. The time-shifting twist keeps the movie interesting till the end. If you're looking for characters' depth here, you'll be disappointed.
The ostrich racing scene looks original to me. I've never seen something like that before.
This movie reminds me of Scorpion King. As a family movie, it's absolutely worth watching once.